Federal troops helping suppress protests in Portland OR

[Testy Calibrate]

What the fuck is wrong with your brain? Those would be cases where police were in fact warranted. You are unequivocally stating that in every single with no exceptions case that police are sent to a call that there is no way to ever tell if the situation might turn life threatening. I really can't honor that with anything but saying that is something only an idiot would say.

The calls you are trying to divert are high risk calls, not low risk.

The situation is just as uncertain every time you get behind the wheel or cross the street.

And 99% of the time a very minimally trained driver could drive down the street fine. We insist on more than that because that guy wouldn't have any idea what to do if there was a problem.

Do you think this is a logical support of your position?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

From what is being reported in the local media Portland is out of control.

The Portland mayor, like our mayor, refuses to put an end to it out of fear of being labeled politically incorrect.

Trump said about the clash between protestors a few years back 'there are good people on both sides'. and rightly god criticized for saying Neo Nazis are 'good people'.

In Seattle the mayor said day after despite wahton destructin, looting, and murder along with rape in the autonomous zone there were good people in the protest and it was not their fault. Let the situaiongo on because there were some good people making a pont.

Yesterday there was a roving group wandering through my neighborhood shouting and ranting.

Democratic mayors are frozen by ideology.

Hey Koyaanisqatsi, do you remember in THIS THREAD where you stated your opposition to taking things out of context and creating deliberate misquotes as a result?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Seems like our resident Libertarian is too worried about male breasts to get concerned over this.

Sen. Brian Schatz Says 'Libertarians Should Be Freaking Out About Portland.' Where Has He Been?

The senator didn't name names or provide any concrete examples of which libertarians he believes have fallen short of the proper outrage threshold. But Schatz's comments are part of a larger trend—one where libertarians have become the perpetual scapegoat for the failed policies of both the left and the right, even when they've been fighting against those very policies for years.

After George Floyd's killing, people on social media coalesced around a common refrain: "Where are the libertarians?" It's a bizarre response, given that libertarians have been beating the drum against police brutality far longer than either mainstream party. "Having left the issue on the back burner for so long," notes Reason's J.D. Tuccille, "some people don't want to admit that we were there ahead of them. Unfortunately, when it comes to police misconduct, we've been way ahead of them.

Had Schatz wanted to engage with libertarians on the subject, he wouldn't have had to look very far. Just 11 hours before the senator sent out his rebuke, the Libertarian Party (L.P.) condemned the actions of the federal agents in Portland: "This is not how law enforcement should be conducted," the L.P. tweeted. "America is the home of the brave, land of the free—not the bastion of secret police. #Gestapo"

wHeRe ArE tHe LiBeRtArIaNs?

 

[Patooka]

wHeRe ArE tHe LiBeRtArIaNs?

They're busy being irrelevant. It's hard work, but someone has to do it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

wHeRe ArE tHe LiBeRtArIaNs?

They're busy being irrelevant. It's hard work, but someone has to do it.

Coming out against the government abusing the people is, according to Patooka, being irrelevant. Nice to know.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Seems like our resident Libertarian is too worried about male breasts to get concerned over this.

Sen. Brian Schatz Says 'Libertarians Should Be Freaking Out About Portland.' Where Has He Been?

The senator didn't name names or provide any concrete examples of which libertarians he believes have fallen short of the proper outrage threshold. But Schatz's comments are part of a larger trend—one where libertarians have become the perpetual scapegoat for the failed policies of both the left and the right, even when they've been fighting against those very policies for years.

After George Floyd's killing, people on social media coalesced around a common refrain: "Where are the libertarians?" It's a bizarre response, given that libertarians have been beating the drum against police brutality far longer than either mainstream party. "Having left the issue on the back burner for so long," notes Reason's J.D. Tuccille, "some people don't want to admit that we were there ahead of them. Unfortunately, when it comes to police misconduct, we've been way ahead of them.

Had Schatz wanted to engage with libertarians on the subject, he wouldn't have had to look very far. Just 11 hours before the senator sent out his rebuke, the Libertarian Party (L.P.) condemned the actions of the federal agents in Portland: "This is not how law enforcement should be conducted," the L.P. tweeted. "America is the home of the brave, land of the free—not the bastion of secret police. #Gestapo"

wHeRe ArE tHe LiBeRtArIaNs?

They were seen over here protecting the Internetz.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

wHeRe ArE tHe LiBeRtArIaNs?

They're busy being irrelevant. It's hard work, but someone has to do it.

Coming out against the government abusing the people is, according to Patooka, being irrelevant. Nice to know.

Funny, you almost never do that here. About 95% of your posts amount to "I didn't say that."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Coming out against the government abusing the people is, according to Patooka, being irrelevant. Nice to know.

Funny, you almost never do that here.

Yes, you pretend I don't do that.

 

[crazyfingers]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/23/poli...pector-general-portland-washington/index.html

CNN)The Justice Department's independent watchdog agency said Thursday that it will investigate the use of force by federal law enforcement officers in Portland, Oregon, and Washington, DC, where violent crackdowns on protesters have punctuated a summer that's been rocked by protests against police brutality.

Will Trump fire him to cover up? A new impeachment act.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're still showing you don't have any understanding of the actual situation. Families won't tell the truth about the mentally ill family member that's trying to kill them and is liable to turn on the cops when they show up.

I see no relevance in this. Tell me, is every single call to 911 a complete lie? no? then no problem with this. See how that works? Your troll-like attempt to divide using "all or nothing" extremity is old and obvious. I think new trolling tactics will be needed to fool the droolers again.

The point is if you send the unarmed people into what appear to be the non-violent social calls you'll sometimes end up getting them killed. You just gave the people calling in a big reason to lie about the problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was wondering when exactly this would happen. As I understand it, these Trump forces have no jurisdiction off of federal property.

Maybe they do. There has been a precedent set. Eisenhower sent army troops into several cities to enforce integration that southern democrat governors, mayors, and politicians (George Wallace, Bull Connor, etc.) refused to enforce.

These are CPB and Immigration officers. They are only allowed to operate within 100 miles of the border or on federal property.

And Eisenhower's action would probably not have passed court muster.

It doesn't even matter how close to the border they are--they are clearly being used in a role that has nothing to do with immigration or border security. Arrest them all.

 

[lpetrich]

AOC introduced this bill: H.R.7711 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): To require the display of certain identification for certain law enforcement officers, and for other purposes. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress - no summary or text yet.

 

[marc]

You're still showing you don't have any understanding of the actual situation. Families won't tell the truth about the mentally ill family member that's trying to kill them and is liable to turn on the cops when they show up.

I see no relevance in this. Tell me, is every single call to 911 a complete lie? no? then no problem with this. See how that works? Your troll-like attempt to divide using "all or nothing" extremity is old and obvious. I think new trolling tactics will be needed to fool the droolers again.

The point is if you send the unarmed people into what appear to be the non-violent social calls you'll sometimes end up getting them killed. You just gave the people calling in a big reason to lie about the problem.

Sending armed cops to a nonviolent social call sometimes ends up getting the civilian killed. Heck, a cop was fired for not killing a civilian. He was trying to de escalate the situation, other cops came in and killed the guy anyway.

If unarmed people check out the situation first they have the chance to call in armed cops if the situation calls for it.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Treedbear]

...

And Eisenhower's action would probably not have passed court muster.

If I recall correctly, Eisenhower used the same authority Trump has cited, the insurrection act. Under Eisenhower the state officials agreed with the mob who were threatening the black children and their families so refused to protect them from the mob. He sent troops in to protect those citizens the state refused to protect and to detain and charge any of the mob that attempted to harm them. Under Trump, local governments agree with the mob and refuse to protect those citizens who's shops are being looted and/or burned, Shop owners and workers who are being assaulted and sometimes beaten and/or killed.

I guess the question is, if the state refuses to protect citizens from mobs does the federal government have cause to protect them. Apparently the insurrection act can be interpreted and argued to say they do.

Here's the difference between then and now -

Days before the school year started, the governor of Arkansas Orval Faubus, a segregationist, announced on September 2, 1957, that he would order the state’s National Guard to surround Central to prevent the black students from entering, under the guise of protecting them from mob violence. In response, Federal Judge Ronald Davies issued a ruling the very next day, mandating that integrated classes would proceed as court ordered.

But on September 4, when the black students, historically known as the Little Rock Nine, faced a vicious throng outside Central, they were denied entry by armed troops in the Arkansas National Guard.

So much for protecting them from the mob. As for here and now the mayor of Portland isn't defending the destruction. Only the expression of the participant's constitutional right to protest. Sure it's a volatile situation. But it's not as if the mayor or the state is infringing on anyone's constitutional rights. That's a major difference for which Eisenhower's or later JFK's actions in no way set a precedent. If the governors hadn't become involved the way they did then I have no reason to think the federal government would have seen fit to get involved without considerable due process. Trump's actions are, how should I say, an over-reaction in order to incite his reactionary base. But will probably in the end amount to no more than another side-show.

 

[skepticalbip]

Here's the difference between then and now -

Days before the school year started, the governor of Arkansas Orval Faubus, a segregationist, announced on September 2, 1957, that he would order the state’s National Guard to surround Central to prevent the black students from entering, under the guise of protecting them from mob violence. In response, Federal Judge Ronald Davies issued a ruling the very next day, mandating that integrated classes would proceed as court ordered.

But on September 4, when the black students, historically known as the Little Rock Nine, faced a vicious throng outside Central, they were denied entry by armed troops in the Arkansas National Guard.

So much for protecting them from the mob. As for here and now the mayor of Portland isn't defending the destruction. Only the expression of the participant's constitutional right to protest. Sure it's a volatile situation. But it's not as if the mayor or the state is infringing on anyone's constitutional rights. That's a major difference for which Eisenhower's or later JFK's actions in no way set a precedent. If the governors hadn't become involved the way they did then I have no reason to think the federal government would have seen fit to get involved without considerable due process. Trump's actions are, how should I say, an over-reaction in order to incite his reactionary base. But will probably in the end amount to no more than another side-show.

You stopped reading about Little Rock too soon. As far as you read, the notional guard was under control of the state governor, who blocked the students rather than controlling the mob. In response to the state government's reticence, Eisenhower nationalized the guard (placing him in control) then added units of the 101st airborne division. With the military under the control of Eisenhower, the students were protected from the mob and escorted into school. There were similar (though less violet) incidents, since Eisenhower had shown his determination, in Alabama.

The current peaceful demonstrations are no problem. What is a problem is the rioters and the destruction and looting of shops, burning of shops, and the physical assaults on the shop owners and their employees. Just as governors refused to protect the students and their parents during integration, the governors and mayors are refusing to protect the citizens from the rioters. Or are you claiming that they are "peacefully" beating the shit out of the shop owners, "peacefully" looting the shops, and "peacefully" burning the shops. and have "peacefully" killed shop employees?

 

[Treedbear]

Here's the difference between then and now -

Days before the school year started, the governor of Arkansas Orval Faubus, a segregationist, announced on September 2, 1957, that he would order the state’s National Guard to surround Central to prevent the black students from entering, under the guise of protecting them from mob violence. In response, Federal Judge Ronald Davies issued a ruling the very next day, mandating that integrated classes would proceed as court ordered.

But on September 4, when the black students, historically known as the Little Rock Nine, faced a vicious throng outside Central, they were denied entry by armed troops in the Arkansas National Guard.

So much for protecting them from the mob. As for here and now the mayor of Portland isn't defending the destruction. Only the expression of the participant's constitutional right to protest. Sure it's a volatile situation. But it's not as if the mayor or the state is infringing on anyone's constitutional rights. That's a major difference for which Eisenhower's or later JFK's actions in no way set a precedent. If the governors hadn't become involved the way they did then I have no reason to think the federal government would have seen fit to get involved without considerable due process. Trump's actions are, how should I say, an over-reaction in order to incite his reactionary base. But will probably in the end amount to no more than another side-show.

You stopped reading about Little Rock too soon. As far as you read, the notional guard was under control of the state governor, who blocked the students rather than controlling the mob. In response to the state government's reticence,

You call it reticence when it was the governor using the national guard to force-ably deny the rights of the black students. That's the essential difference as far as I can tell.

Eisenhower nationalized the guard (placing him in control) then added units of the 101st airborne division. With the military under the control of Eisenhower, the students were protected from the mob and escorted into school. There were similar (though less violet) incidents, since Eisenhower had shown his determination, in Alabama.

The current peaceful demonstrations are no problem. What is a problem is the rioters and the destruction and looting of shops, burning of shops, and the physical assaults on the shop owners and their employees. Just as governors refused to protect the students and their parents during integration, the governors and mayors are refusing to protect the citizens from the rioters.

Where did it change from reticence to refusal? The former implies uncertainty. The latter cold determination. This is just a very difficult situation that requires time and a large helping of discretion (and even reticence if you like) to arrive at a common cause. The rioters aren't helping. Trump subverting the authority of the governor undermines any chances for change. Or are you saying we'll be better off with an even less accountable police force?

Or are you claiming that they are "peacefully" beating the shit out of the shop owners, "peacefully" looting the shops, and "peacefully" burning the shops. and have "peacefully" killed shop employees?

No need to get snarky with me. When you put it like that it sounds like you're trying to conflate the law-abiding protesters with the vandals. Because that's what people will hear.

 

[repoman]

Strange that they made theater of burning what was probably a past service life police car.

 

[ZiprHead]

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/FymvfpN6W20[/YOUTUBE]

 

[skepticalbip]

You stopped reading about Little Rock too soon. As far as you read, the notional guard was under control of the state governor, who blocked the students rather than controlling the mob. In response to the state government's reticence,

You call it reticence when it was the governor using the national guard to force-ably deny the rights of the black students. That's the essential difference as far as I can tell.

Before the Arkansas guard was nationalized by Eisenhower, the Democratic Governor was was in charge of them. He did not use the Arkansas guard to protect the children and their families because he agreed with the mob. Eisenhower nationalized the Arkansas guard which made them federal troops and added units of the 101st airborne and used them to protect the children and their families.

Eisenhower nationalized the guard (placing him in control) then added units of the 101st airborne division. With the military under the control of Eisenhower, the students were protected from the mob and escorted into school. There were similar (though less violet) incidents, since Eisenhower had shown his determination, in Alabama.

The current peaceful demonstrations are no problem. What is a problem is the rioters and the destruction and looting of shops, burning of shops, and the physical assaults on the shop owners and their employees. Just as governors refused to protect the students and their parents during integration, the governors and mayors are refusing to protect the citizens from the rioters.

Where did it change from reticence to refusal? The former implies uncertainty. The latter cold determination. This is just a very difficult situation that requires time and a large helping of discretion (and even reticence if you like) to arrive at a common cause. The rioters aren't helping. Trump subverting the authority of the governor undermines any chances for change. Or are you saying we'll be better off with an even less accountable police force?

Or are you claiming that they are "peacefully" beating the shit out of the shop owners, "peacefully" looting the shops, and "peacefully" burning the shops. and have "peacefully" killed shop employees?

No need to get snarky with me. When you put it like that it sounds like you're trying to conflate the law-abiding protesters with the vandals. Because that's what people will hear.

I absolutely support protests and have clearly said so. I am being snarky because you are conflating the protestors with these violent rioters. Do you think there are shop owners and workers who are being abused by the violent rioters (not demonstrators). If not you haven't seen the looting and arson. If you have seen the beatings, looting, and arson and agree with the state authorities that the citizens being abused shouldn't be protected from the mobs then I would ask... if the demonstration was on the street in front of your house and violent thugs hiding among the demonstrators broke away and attacked your home, breaking windows, busting down the door, looting your property, and/or beating the shit out of you do you think you would shrug it off thinking it was only a demonstration?

The state and local governments absolutely are obligated to protect the rights of protestors (which they are doing) but they are also obligated to protect the rights of citizens from violent rioters (which they are refusing to do).